George Zimmerman Trial

[BobD]

By a show of hands, let see how many folks here have never changed their POV on something, especially after your original plan sounded good at the time, but wasn't working out so well? Anyone?

 

[adsnorri]

By a show of hands, let see how many folks here have never changed their POV on something, especially after your original plan sounded good at the time, but wasn't working out so well? Anyone?

.

 

[Cackalacky]

Just saw a report that there are allegations the jury was given hours during weekends to visit families and were never fully segregated during the trial. There is also evidence some jurors manipulated the selection process to get picked in order to get book deals etc, particularly Juror B37. Somewhat speculation right now but I want to see more come out before I believe it.

 

[irishog77]

Fellas...After nine years and some insight to the results of the legislation, I think it is alright to say it is worth taking a look at...even if you voted for the bill. Flip Flopping after nine years?! Stretching it a little in this case. I understand the argument though. Just my opinion but what if Trayvon's father or other family member now crosses paths with GZ. Words are exchanged and GZ gets shot because the altercation was escalated and The shooter says that CZ attacked him after words were exchanged? I know this is a stretch but not a far one because if my son was shot down in the street, there would be more than words exchanged. Interested to know if you guys think this would be another case of stand your ground?

Agreed...if these are merely some of your personal feelings-- hopefully, to an extent, we can all adapt and evolve a little bit.

Voting for something, in a legislature, is a little different. Sponsoring a bill, then voting for it, in that legislature, is even more different. The singular TM/GZ incident (I say singular, because has the president mentioned other cases?) causes him to rethink an entire law he sponsored? That's either not knowing the facts when he sponsored a bill into law...or flip-flopping due to popular opinion. Neither of those are good things...from the man we elected to be our president.

 

[Wild Bill]

56 Yays to 0 Nos...A lot of finger pointing to do. The amount of dirty politics in this country is horrid but of the group, I think Obama is the least likely to be involved in it, imo. Not saying he has never partaken, just not as much or on the scale as many others.

You're not familiar with Chicago politics, huh?

 

[kmoose]

56 Yays to 0 Nos...A lot of finger pointing to do. The amount of dirty politics in this country is horrid but of the group, I think Obama is the least likely to be involved in it, imo. Not saying he has never partaken, just not as much or on the scale as many others.

How many of those Yays are now campaigning to look into overturning the law? THAT'S the finger pointing that is going on. And it looks like there is just ONE direction to point those fingers in.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

This is precisely why senators don't often become president. They have lots and lots of votes on record that are easy to dredge up.

I'd propose that it's possible that he believed in the law, has seen it play out for 9 years, and decided that he was wrong.

I also haven't looked at the wording of the laws to see how they compare to simple self defense type laws.

Or this is possibly just a cynical political play. Hard to say.

 

[phgreek]

...the forthcoming way to re-visit something w/o being hypocritical and riding the wave of political dissent is to admit you were supportive of it, but evidence has shown this to be a bad idea...where did he cite the study that changed his mind? Where did he say he was changing his mind?

You can't be serious that Trayvon Martin's situation is driving the president's thoughts on the matter? As tragic as it is, and as twisted as many have made it...his role DEMANDS he think about things in a larger context.

Look...I give people a pass when they are forthcoming about where they are, and their changes of heart. His changes of heart appear to be done for expediency...and justified as the soul searching lightbulb types only because he is a liberal, and it must be the reason...BS total BS.

 

[Cackalacky]

This blame game is nauseating.

 

[irishog77]

Agreed...if these are merely some of your personal feelings-- hopefully, to an extent, we can all adapt and evolve a little bit.

Voting for something, in a legislature, is a little different. Sponsoring a bill, then voting for it, in that legislature, is even more different. The singular TM/GZ incident (I say singular, because has the president mentioned other cases?) causes him to rethink an entire law he sponsored? That's either not knowing the facts when he sponsored a bill into law...or flip-flopping due to popular opinion. Neither of those are good things...from the man we elected to be our president.

...the forthcoming way to re-visit something w/o being hypocritical and riding the wave of political dissent is to admit you were supportive of it, but evidence has shown this to be a bad idea...where did he cite the study that changed his mind? Where did he say he was changing his mind?

You can't be serious that Trayvon Martin's situation is driving the president's thoughts on the matter? As tragic as it is, and as twisted as many have made it...his role DEMANDS he think about things in a larger context.

Look...I give people a pass when they are forthcoming about where they are, and their changes of heart. His changes of heart appear to be done for expediency...and justified as the soul searching lightbulb types only because he is a liberal, and it must be the reason...BS total BS.

Said much better by you than I.

 

[phgreek]

By a show of hands, let see how many folks here have never changed their POV on something, especially after your original plan sounded good at the time, but wasn't working out so well? Anyone?

the presumption you make is "not working out so well"...who says, what study? What'd it say?

This is political and you know it, otherwise he'd have been standup about it and offered up that while he once was for SYG...the Trayvon Martin Case caused him to go look at numbers NATION WIDE and he didn't like what he saw...and then share the studies. DID he do ANY that?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

the presumption you make is "not working out so well"...who says, what study? What'd it say?

This is political and you know it, otherwise he'd have been standup about it and offered up that while he once was for SYG...the Trayvon Martin Case caused him to go look at numbers NATION WIDE and he didn't like what he saw...and then share the studies. DID he do ANY that?

Study Says ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws Increase Homicides - Law Blog - WSJ

According to this study, it does not deter crime and may increase homicide rates.

 

[phgreek]

Said much better by you than I.

naw...I like what you said...its true. This isn't some guy at the bar changing his mind here...there were supposedly reasons for supporting such a law...and the data indicated such...what happened?

 

[Cackalacky]

By a show of hands, let see how many folks here have never changed their POV on something, especially after your original plan sounded good at the time, but wasn't working out so well? Anyone?

I surfed a hurricane. Seemed awesome at the time. Really stupid after all said and done. I dont fault people for flopping on things way down the road. The scene changes, politics change etc. I expect that. I hope people re-examine themselves. Republicans and the mandate come to mind for me. Maybe they really dont like it now, or secretly maybe they do but publicly not. I dont really mind that, just politics.

What is truly devastating and hypocritical is those who get out there and rail with fire and brimstone about stimulus money and the next day show up at a ceremony opening a new facility or groundbreaking funded by the stimulus.

 

[ACamp1900]

This blame game is nauseating.

That's all Bush's fault....

 

[Cackalacky]

naw...I like what you said...its true. This isn't some guy at the bar changing his mind here...there were supposedly reasons for supporting such a law...and the data indicated such...what happened?

Maybe he read the studies showing SYG may not be effective?

Maybe republicans should read all of the studies showing birth control leads to lower abortion and single parent rates. Think that would change their mind? I could only hope.

 

[Cackalacky]

That's all Bush's fault....

Boo this man, it is Hoover's fault all the way.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Read the actual bills. I think they are substantively different.

Illinois:
Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of SB2386

Florida:
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Florida specifically includes this language:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

And according to a highly reputable source (...okay, Wikipedia), the Illinois law is not included in the list of Stand your Ground states.

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[irishog77]

Maybe he read the studies showing SYG may not be effective?

Maybe republicans should read all of the studies showing birth control leads to lower abortion and single parent rates. Think that would change their mind? I could only hope.

Those studies and Daniel Steel novels make for great vacation reading.

 

[phgreek]

Study Says ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws Increase Homicides - Law Blog - WSJ

According to this study, it does not deter crime and may increase homicide rates.

well...first of all, I didn't hear the president cite anything, or talk about a CHANGE of heart...which is kinda what I was getting at.

second...this study says justifiable homicides spiked after 2005...I think you'd expect that.
It also says homicides stayed the same...well, you might expect that too just based on sample sizes and trends.

W/o seeing ALL the actual numbers I'm forced to look upon this as cherry picked parts of studies. Lots of authoritative assertions...short on the 2nd half of the data you need to draw any conclusions yourself.

The original point was ...where is the president's moment where he changed his mind/heart on this...where he says he was wrong, but now has information that changes his view?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Politicians take money (contributions) and vote for things, without considering the long term consequences, all the time.

Clinton had the "one-tick" rule (elimination) which he admitted was a horrible change, and did a bit toward gutting the post depression safety net before the Bush administration finished it off.

Regan, Bush, and Bush each had a compendium of banking and business regulations that they pushed for that had to be repealed, that we suffered tremendously for, that if they didn't see the light, it was just because of senility or stupidity. It doesn't matter what your political cup of tea, your candidate has whored to get to the place you would be able to voter for them. Probably the last three Presidents that didn't sell out wholesale were Kennedy, Ford, and Carter.

But this thread is about something different.

Forget the conspiracy stories on either side. This is about several sentences that were added by the judge to the jury instructions in the Zimmerman case that made it impossible for the jury to convict Zimmerman.

The truth is no one in power or authority wanted Zimmerman convicted. Not a single prosecutor, particularly that two-faced FLA Attorney General. Some hack thought that the perfect solution was to bring him up on charges (to placate anyone rightfully incensed by his act) but to let him off legally because that is the record that must be protect these "Free to Murder Thy Neighbor" laws.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

well...first of all, I didn't hear the president cite anything, or talk about a CHANGE of heart...which is kinda what I was getting at.

second...this study says justifiable homicides spiked after 2005...I think you'd expect that.
It also says homicides stayed the same...well, you might expect that too just based on sample sizes and trends.

W/o seeing ALL the actual numbers I'm forced to look upon this as cherry picked parts of studies. Lots of authoritative assertions...short on the 2nd half of the data you need to draw any conclusions yourself.

The original point was ...where is the president's moment where he changed his mind/heart on this...where he says he was wrong, but now has information that changes his view?

I'm really not saying that his comments haven't been politically motivated or even cynical. I don't know. You asked for the data and I provided some. It is true, however, that the Illinois law is not considered "Stand Your Ground."

Here's the study out of Texas A&M.
http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf

Note that it doesn't include Illinois.

A footnote quote from the study:

We are aware of four states that passed laws removing civil liability that that made no other changes to self-defense law over this time period, including Idaho (2006), Maryland (2010), Maine (2007), and Illinois (2004).

 

[Cackalacky]

Stand Your Ground Laws, Homicides, and Injuries

What,... no one has read this?
Stand Your Ground Laws, Homicides, and Injuries
Chandler B. McClellan, Erdal Tekin
NBER Working Paper No. 18187
Issued in June 2012
NBER Program(s): HE LE
The controversies surrounding gun control policies have recently moved to the forefront of public’s attention in the United States and elsewhere. Since 2005, eighteen states in the United States have passed laws extending the right to self-defense with no duty to retreat to any place a person has a legal right to be, and several additional states are debating the adoption of similar legislation. Despite the implications that these laws may have for public safety, there has been little empirical investigation of their impact on crime and victimization. In this paper, we use monthly data from the U.S. Vital Statistics to examine how Stand Your Ground laws affect homicides and firearm injuries. We identify the impact of these laws by exploiting variation in the effective date of these laws across states over time. Our results indicate that Stand Your Ground laws are associated with a significant increase in the number of homicides among whites, especially white males. According to our estimates, between 28 and 33 additional white males are killed each month as a result of these laws. We find no consistent evidence to suggest that these laws increase homicides among blacks. Auxiliary analysis using data from the Supplemental Homicide Reports indicates that our results are not driven by the killings of assailants. We also find that the stand your ground laws are not related to non-homicide deaths, which should not respond to gun laws. Finally, we analyze data from the Health Care Utilization Project to show that these laws are also associated with a significant increase in emergency room visits and hospital discharges related to firearm inflicted injuries. Taken together, these findings raise serious doubts against the argument that Stand Your Ground laws make public safer."

 

[irishog77]

Politicians take money (contributions) and vote for things, without considering the long term consequences, all the time.

Clinton had the "one-tick" rule (elimination) which he admitted was a horrible change, and did a bit toward gutting the post depression safety net before the Bush administration finished it off.

Regan, Bush, and Bush each had a compendium of banking and business regulations that they pushed for that had to be repealed, that we suffered tremendously for, that if they didn't see the light, it was just because of senility or stupidity. It doesn't matter what your political cup of tea, your candidate has whored to get to the place you would be able to voter for them. Probably the last three Presidents that didn't sell out wholesale were Kennedy, Ford, and Carter.

But this thread is about something different.

Forget the conspiracy stories on either side. This is about several sentences that were added by the judge to the jury instructions in the Zimmerman case that made it impossible for the jury to convict Zimmerman.

The truth is no one in power or authority wanted Zimmerman convicted. Not a single prosecutor, particularly that two-faced FLA Attorney General. Some hack thought that the perfect solution was to bring him up on charges (to placate anyone rightfully incensed by his act) but to let him off legally because that is the record that must be protect these "Free to Murder Thy Neighbor" laws.

Is it? Or is it about the SYG law in Florida? Or the SYG laws nationwide? Or racial profiling? Or racial injustice?

It seems like this case is about a number of things that can be used to help steer social change.

 

[phgreek]

Read the actual bills. I think they are substantively different.

Illinois:
Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of SB2386

Florida:
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Florida specifically includes this language:


And according to a highly reputable source (...okay, Wikipedia), the Illinois law is not included in the list of Stand your Ground states.

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm no lawyer...so my reading of these things is always wrong...but

I read these...and I'm not sure what makes you official in the Wikpedia list, but this bill says you can use deadly force to protect your person or that of another from immanent danger inclusive of FORCIBLE Felony conduct and absolves you from civil proceedings from assailant etc. The forcible Felony part alludes to not having to flee first at least in some cases does it not?

So what is the operative difference here?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I'm no lawyer...so my reading of these things is always wrong...but

I read these...and I'm not sure what makes you official in the Wikpedia list, but this bill says you can use deadly force to protect your person or that of another from immanent danger inclusive of FORCIBLE Felony conduct and absolves you from civil proceedings from assailant etc. The forcible Felony part alludes to not having to flee first at least in some cases does it not?

So what is the operative difference here?

From what I can tell, there's still a duty to retreat in IL. I read it as the aggressor can't sue you for things like medical bills if he's attacking you, but not as SYG.

But here's Dave Weigel's interpretation.

No, President Obama Didn't Support a "Stand Your Ground" Law in Illinois

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Here's what the Daily Herald (out of suburban Chicago) says are the differences (note that the article predates this conversation about Obama).

Illinois has its own stance on 'Stand Your Ground' - DailyHerald.com

 

[phgreek]

I'm really not saying that his comments haven't been politically motivated or even cynical. I don't know. You asked for the data and I provided some. It is true, however, that the Illinois law is not considered "Stand Your Ground."

Here's the study out of Texas A&M.
http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf

Note that it doesn't include Illinois.

A footnote quote from the study:

Understood...and I'm not saying studies didn't exist...I was saying when you are a forthcoming, standup guy, you point to where you were, and what drove you to your change of heart.

I believe Mr. Obama hoped no one connected the dots here, and he is likely used to folks not connecting the dots on him, so he grabbed his board and jumped on the wave w/o explanation of his past view.

I believe he will now be forced to double back, and explain, and his explanation, no matter how heartfelt, will be less credible.

Dude...I know you and cacky have data...not necessarily challenging the data (well some), but rather asserting my expectations of a president's change of heart/policy...the data part was a thing I'd expect him to put forward in support of said change...if he copped to his previous views...he did neither.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Understood...and I'm not saying studies didn't exist...I was saying when you are a forthcoming, standup guy, you point to where you were, and what drove you to your change of heart.

I believe Mr. Obama hoped no one connected the dots here, and he is likely used to folks not connecting the dots on him, so he grabbed his board and jumped on the wave w/o explanation of his past view.

I believe he will now be forced to double back, and explain, and his explanation, no matter how heartfelt, will be less credible.

Dude...I know you and cacky have data...not necessarily challenging the data (well some), but rather asserting my expectations of a president's change of heart/policy...the data part was a thing I'd expect him to put forward in support of said change...if he copped to his previous views...he did neither.

The more I look at this, however, I think there's reason to say that he hasn't necessarily changed his view. These are different laws.

And, to be fair, there are conflicting studies. See the bottom of the Wikipedia page. More seem to say that the laws are not helpful, but it's not 100% one way. It does merit re-evaluation, IMO.

 

[phgreek]

From what I can tell, there's still a duty to retreat in IL. I read it as the aggressor can't sue you for things like medical bills if he's attacking you, but not as SYG.

But here's Dave Weigel's interpretation.

No, President Obama Didn't Support a "Stand Your Ground" Law in Illinois

NOTE: I'm about to read it...

the cited article says:

A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with her real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect.

the text of SB SB2386 says:

Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.
8 (a) A person is justified in the use of force against
9 another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that
10 such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against
11 such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is
12 justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to
13 cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes
14 that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great
15 bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a
16 forcible felony.

we should first unravel this...was the intent of the article to cite the castle doctrine or what Obama backed...what was in SB 2386 is quite different...IMHO


thus my question still stands...based on what was actually put forth in IL, as written...whats the actual operative difference...in practice. In IL, if someone says I want your wallet, and comes at me, I can shoot them...yes? I see no duty to retreat...what am I missing